Brady vs. Manning: Media Comparison Discussion Thread

[Brand Name]

Honestly, I think this substory has no business in a thread devoted to the news and upkeep of the Al Jazeera/Peyton Manning/Teagarden/etc. story. If you want to compare how the two are being covered, talk about it here.

Not terribly in favor of this thread myself, but in order to make a higher quality/more germane thread elsewhere in this section, and rid that thread of such distraction, figured this might benefit both parties on this front. If you're of the persuasion to compare the two, this is the place. If you don't think it's relevant and shouldn't be discussed, the existing thread is for you.

 

[djbayko]

/threadkiller

 

[The Price Is Wrong]

One way to make chicken salad out of the chicken shit that is further Ballghazi complaints is to look in more depth at Peyton's PR strategy. That Manning is getting a more favorable edit by media agencies now than Brady did initially (nevermind after the Wells Report came out) is hard to dispute, but it's not interesting on its own. WHY that is happening, however, is somewhat interesting.

There are the antecedent narratives, to some degree. Brady has always been a golden-boy, somewhat-aloof persona who has been very private. However, as a star in the league, he's gotten a huge ratio of positive to negative coverage, and quite a volume of that. Manning's persona management isn't just through media appearances and team hype, but while the commercials and charity work have probably shaped his public perception a bit, I'm not sure it's given him a huge starting point in favor relative to Brady. I suppose we need to factor in that PEDs are an issue already-understood by the sports-following audience, and people find it distasteful but not weird; what Brady was kinda-sorta accused of [fill in ranting description here] was both novel and weird, so he started with a couple strikes against him. But all told, the initial advantages going in were only slightly favoring Peyton here.

Where I see a much bigger difference is in the after-the-fact narrative control and proactive actions:

• Peyton responded by making himself available the same day to ESPN, as well as on Sunday pregames, and a couple other places noted in this thread; Brady meanwhile had a stage-managed podium statement, 4 days later, after it had already done several circuits on the national news and speculation.
• Brady's initial statement, while matter-of-fact and sincere, went on far beyond what can be contained in a sound-bite, allowing the pre-existing narratives to remain what's stuck in people's heads. Peyton's was brief (and repeated).
• Likewise, Brady's statement was calm and measured. Peyton's, while being roughly the same in content, was furious and emotional. People like to see that, and are inclined to believe statements presented that way (see e.g. Dr Fox effect). Even if they both had similar coaching in terms of what types of statements to make or words to use or not use, Brady missed an opportunity to come out as the aggressor and be presented as the sympathetic, aggrieved party.
• Peyton has since threatened legal action in blustery fashion, nevermind his odds of success. Brady let legal action come to him.
• Not much difference in team/ownership response; both were strongly supportive but bland and lacking detail.
• We also need to point out that within a few days of the initial report, Brady had a then-highly-credible national NFL reporter relaying fairly damning-sounding information, whereas the backtracking here from Guyer and Sly gives momentum to the "nothing to see here" narrative. That's not the media's fault; sports media are naturally lazy as we all know and will take the path of least resistance 95% of the time. Brady's lack of access to the real facts would have meant that doing a Peyton-like offensive could have potentially left him exposed as stating mistruths later on, even if irrelevant. But Peyton's choice to be dismissive and contemptuous of the reporting has undoubtedly helped him be the shaper of the current reporting tone.
• Lastly, I'd observe that Peyton has started to develop (and may further emphasize) the Clinton-in-1992 approach of appearing to be primarily defensive of his wife (to Jerry Brown: "you ought to be ashamed of yourself, jumping on my wife!"). Brady probably never had any such opportunity, but the "defending my family" theme is one with powerful biases in Peyton's favor.

All told, I think Brady probably missed some opportunities to shift narrative in his favor in the early days of Ballghazi. Any built-in advantages Peyton had have been dwarfed by the different tactical choices after the initial news broke.

 

[jtn46]

It's early, there are games happening, and Peyton Manning may never play in the NFL again. This story just broke Saturday so while I think there is a level of restraint from the media on this story we didn't often see with Deflategate, there's a lot to happen still.

 

[86spike]

I made this point early in the other thread but the huge difference between this story and the deflation story was the timing.

The Pats had just punched a ticket to the SB when that story broke. If Manning had just led Denver to the SB the day AJ revealed the details of their reporting, it would have had the same lightning fast and loud pick up.

As it is, Manning isn't even playing.

 

[EvilEmpire]

It's also the period between Christmas and New Years. While there are plenty of sporting events going on, I'm guessing it might be a little bit harder for investigative reporters to chase down or follow up new leads.

It's a big story with a lot of players involved. I think it will steadily build some momentum, but more like the Biogenesis scandal than the deflategate stuff. Beyond the timing differences, there also isn't a spotlight on team ownership/management.

 

[Pandemonium67]

Mort's fallacious tweet threw gasoline on the Brady fire, blowing it up into a firestorm. We haven't seen anything like that with Peyton's story. Yet.

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

Mort's fallacious tweet threw gasoline on the Brady fire, blowing it up into a firestorm. We haven't seen anything like that with Peyton's story. Yet.

But that's kind of the whole crux to this discussion. Some of us believe the double standard being applied is the reason why we haven't, and probably won't, see something like Morts tweet for this situation.

 

[EvilEmpire]

Mortensen lost credibility as a reporter after that mistake. I'm sure he learned something from it. I bet other reporters did too.

 

[djbayko]

I made this point early in the other thread but the huge difference between this story and the deflation story was the timing.

The Pats had just punched a ticket to the SB when that story broke. If Manning had just led Denver to the SB the day AJ revealed the details of their reporting, it would have had the same lightning fast and loud pick up.

As it is, Manning isn't even playing.

Yes, and timing is also a huge factor when discussing their respective PR strategies. Peyton had advanced notice - not only that it was going to be released - but also that it would be huge news (duh). Tom was juggling this between winning a huge football game and what little rest he could get - all while not realizing exactly how much steam it would pick up (because it sounded silly).

 

[MarcSullivaFan]

I don't think the situations are comparable. Initially the focus was on BB and the organization generally, not Brady specifically. It would have been bizzare for him to immediately come out with a forceful individual denial.

Also, assuming they're both faultless, Manning had no reason NOT to immediately deny it. Either he used HGH or he didn't. He's in the best position to know that. Brady, on the other hand, had to have some concern that one of the Dorito Dinks had decided to take matters into his own hands after Brady complained about the refs over-inflating balls.

 

[Mooch]

The Today Show interviewed Deborah Davies this morning about the documentary and the questioning towards the end was akin to a cross-examination where the two hosts hammered home that there was no specific evidence linking Manning to HGH use, only that shipments went to his wife. If you believe Davies and the documentary, there is no reason for Manning's wife to procure HGH for any legitimate medical reason and it is easy and logical to draw a straight line between the shipments and Manning's use for performance enhancing purposes. Yet the Today Show treated Davies as a hostile witness and didn't even try to connect the dots in this fashion. Certainly a far cry from the way that same program handled Deflategate in May, with Bob Costas alleging that Brady was covering up a ball-deflation scheme despite a similar lack of direct evidence.

 

[PayrodsFirstClutchHit]

In the early stages of Deflategate, there was so little evidence to examine outside of Mort's tweet that it became a game of "How does this tarnish Brady/Pats?" story. The morning shows would drag out former players and ask how they felt this impacts Brady's legacy and to a man it was all negative. There were no scientific discussions on the impacts of weather on the measurements, so it became a referendum on how this "cheating" should be punished.

There was no "if" in the coverage of Brady as there has been with Manning. It was was more "Should these known cheaters be forced to forfeit the Superbowl?" There was zero counter narrative outside of NE that would even question if this "scandal" occurred.

 

[Bleedred]

The Today Show interviewed Deborah Davies this morning about the documentary and the questioning towards the end was akin to a cross-examination where the two hosts hammered home that there was no specific evidence linking Manning to HGH use, only that shipments went to his wife. If you believe Davies and the documentary, there is no reason for Manning's wife to procure HGH for any legitimate medical reason and it is easy and logical to draw a straight line between the shipments and Manning's use for performance enhancing purposes. Yet the Today Show treated Davies as a hostile witness and didn't even try to connect the dots in this fashion. Certainly a far cry from the way that same program handled Deflategate in May, with Bob Costas alleging that Brady was covering up a ball-deflation scheme despite a similar lack of direct evidence.

I saw the interview and thought Davies did a tremendous job, embarrassing the today show hosts, who were breathless in their assertion that Davies had "no evidence" that Peyton manning used HGH. Davies was clear that neither she nor the AJ report ever suggested that Manning used HGH, but rather the report was about doping in sports generally, and that everyone has glommed on to the last few minutes of the report as it relates to Manning. As to Manning, her point was very simple (I'm paraphrasing): "We don't allege that Peyton Manning used HGH. We do allege that there is strong evidence that multiple shipments of HGH were sent to Ashley Manning during the times noted in the report, which we stand by. We have audio of the Guyer clinic confirming that Sly worked there in 2011 (the audio was played and the person who they spoke with clearly confirmed that Sly worked there in 2011)."

Moreover, I thought it was interesting that Davies noted that Sly was not an "intern" but a PhD candidate doing a rotation at the clinic and that his protests notwithstanding, they had 27 hours of interview tapes with him, in which he was never badgered or unstable, as he now asserts (Sly apparently now suggests that he was disoriented by the death of his fiance at the time and that anything he said then is unreliable).

She never asserted, nor did the report assert, that Manning used HGH.

Edit: clarity

 

[Mooch]

Interesting to read ESPN's Ian O'Connor on Peyton this AM, which suggests that poor 'ole Pey-Pey "deserves better" and suggests that he is "giving Manning the benefit of the doubt":

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14457019/denver-broncos-qb-peyton-manning-deserved-better-ending-nfl

Yet O'Connor never once gave Brady the benefit of the doubt on anything early on in Deflategate:

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/12213363/tom-brady-tale-hold-weight

 

[singaporesoxfan]

Yes, and timing is also a huge factor when discussing their respective PR strategies. Peyton had advanced notice - not only that it was going to be released - but also that it would be huge news (duh). Tom was juggling this between winning a huge football game and what little rest he could get - all while not realizing exactly how much steam it would pick up (because it sounded silly).

This may be true but even post-Super Bowl - when it was clear that DFG was a big deal - Brady's PR strategy seemed weak.

 

[Norm Siebern]

In my opinion there are too many people still slamming their heads against the wall here. I used to be one of them. This is not to doubt the sincerity or the truthfullness of what many write on this board. In fact I agree with the general consensus. But it just doesn't matter.

Look, the story has already been written. The Patriots, in the sports worlds' eyes, are cheaters. Perioid. That is the narative. There is nothing that can change that. Peyton may have cheated. But the sports world and the sports media will not write that story. It doesn't fit the narative. The Patriots are the bad guys. You can't have two bad guys. That is too confusing. Too grey. Too "real life." It doesn't fit the narative. Peyton is a goofy, slightly awkward nice "every" guy. Brady is a good looking, model-marrying slick packaged pretty boy. That the narative is not true (1st round vs 6th round; spoon in mouth son of NFL QB vs. College part timer, etc.) doesn't matter. The truth doesn't matter. The narative has been written. The world and sports fans in general don't want nuance. They want one bad guy, and everyone else isn't bad. And the Patriots are the bad guys.

It is hard for me to accept this because I was raised on Clive Rush and Chuck Fairbanks to Colorado and cocaine parties after losing 46-10 in the Super Bowl and 1-15. I don't see the Patriots as a monolthic Ivan Drago winning (read: cheating) machine. But the rest of the world does. That is the narative. It is what it is. And there is nothing, nothing, that can be done to change that. Yes, we can point out that other teams cheat way more than the Patriots have been accused of. Yes, we can say that they win because they are a better, more prepared organization. Yes, we can say that the media is unfair.Yes, we can say that Peyton will be treated differently than Brady. All true. And none of it matters. The narative has been written, and it is not changing, ever, no matter what we say or do.

So what to do? Embrace it. Fuck 'em. Keep winning, and laugh at the whining excuse makers.

I know the Patriots are incredibly (the best, actually) prepared, and the best organization in sports, due to hard work, ability and skill. That others try to slough off their success to cheating is in actuality a benefit. It keeps others from out working and out performing and out preparing. "Oh, we don't have to work harder, because the Patriots cheat, and they got caught, so now we can beat them becaise they can't cheat anymore." Fine, wonderful, in fact. Let the world think the Patriots cheat. And then the Patriots will just continue to out work them some more, and continue to win.

Just my .02.

 

[jimbobim]

I saw the interview and thought Davies did a tremendous job, embarrassing the today show hosts, who were breathless in their assertion that Davies had "no evidence" that Peyton manning used HGH. Davies was clear that neither she nor the AJ report ever suggested that Manning used HGH, but rather the report was about doping in sports generally, and that everyone has glommed on to the last few minutes of the report as it relates to Manning. As to Manning, her point was very simple (I'm paraphrasing): "We don't allege that Peyton Manning used HGH. We do allege that there is strong evidence that multiple shipments of HGH were sent to Ashley Manning during the times noted in the report, which we stand by. We have audio of the Guyer clinic confirming that Sly worked there in 2011 (the audio was played and the person who they spoke with clearly confirmed that Sly worked there in 2011)."

Moreover, I thought it was interesting that Davies noted that Sly was not an "intern" but a PhD candidate doing a rotation at the clinic and that his protests notwithstanding, they had 27 hours of interview tapes with him, in which he was never badgered or unstable, as he now asserts (Sly apparently now suggests that he was disoriented by the death of his fiance at the time and that anything he said then is unreliable).

She never asserted, nor did the report assert, that Manning used HGH.

Edit: clarity

I saw another Davies interview on a link upthread that was similar but less of a treatment like a hostile witness.

Peyton is getting extreme deferential statement because Bristol , acutely, knows how they set the sports narrative and correspondingly what the league officer reacts to and perceives .

Mort's report was a bonanza for the network and the league even if it was not accurate in the end. ESPN surely wants Manning to someday join the network. The careful treatment further saves a potential Goodell making an example out of Manning. If RG/NFL chooses this/(or is forced to later by non ESPN reporting) Bristol can replay all this reverential treatment to still get Manning to work for them.

 

[Rusty13]

Peter King gives a tongue bath to Manning and lashes out at Pats fans (at around the 5 minute mark) and their "inferiority complex".

 

[ifmanis5]

I love how Eisen, most of the media and most fans are so quick to slam the AJ reporting but were all to willing to wave the pom poms for Mort's tweet and ESPN's "reporting" on DFG. I'm not saying the AJ story is bulletproof but the differences of how DFG and this story are being discussed are just so obvious.
Nobody wants to rock the NFL cash cow boat and so all parties were willing to tow the line and slam the Pats with either lies or out of context info at every turn ('he destroyed his phone!'). In this case, it's rally around Peyton, defend The Shield and throw stones at everyone in the way until further notice.
King is being a total troll above. "Reporting doesn't happen instantaneously" is a terrible excuse. Where was Mort's reporting in the year since his wrong Tweet? It was nowhere. King himself questioned DFG and its handling but hardly pushed for any new info or came out of the NFL dungeon with any valuable secrets via reporting.
AJ should be applauded for taking this story on and instead they are getting killed while Peyton mostly isn't.

 

[Strike4]

There might be a simple explanation for why they are treated differently: Brady was accused of deflating balls and Manning is accused of using HGH illegally. Deflating balls is not a crime, and so the media can freely go after him by making accusations, writing inflammatory articles, etc. IANAL, but they need to tread lightly with Manning so they don't get sued.

 

[( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)]

There might be a simple explanation for why they are treated differently: Brady was accused of deflating balls and Manning is accused of using HGH illegally. Deflating balls is not a crime, and so the media can freely go after him by making accusations, writing inflammatory articles, etc. IANAL, but they need to tread lightly with Manning so they don't get sued.

You are giving the Sports media too much create.

These are not especially bright people. Do you really think Ben Volin has any grasp whatsoever on these types of legal issues?

 

[johnmd20]

Interesting to read ESPN's Ian O'Connor on Peyton this AM, which suggests that poor 'ole Pey-Pey "deserves better" and suggests that he is "giving Manning the benefit of the doubt":

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14457019/denver-broncos-qb-peyton-manning-deserved-better-ending-nfl

Yet O'Connor never once gave Brady the benefit of the doubt on anything early on in Deflategate:

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/12213363/tom-brady-tale-hold-weight

This is the perfect example of why Patriots fans have the well earned complex they do. It happened to Brady, and his tale "held no weight". Which was obviously a nicely jumped to conclusion. But Manning "deserved better". Another jump to a conclusion. One is assuming guilt and the other innocence.

Why does Brady hold no weight but Manning deserves better? This is how the story gets shaped by the media.

 

[Strike4]

You are giving the Sports media too much create.

These are not especially bright people. Do you really think Ben Volin has any grasp whatsoever on these types of legal issues?

He has no idea - but the lawyers for The Boston Globe are vetting everything that gets written to make sure that no lines are crossed.

 

[AardsmaToZupcic]

Interesting to read ESPN's Ian O'Connor on Peyton this AM, which suggests that poor 'ole Pey-Pey "deserves better" and suggests that he is "giving Manning the benefit of the doubt":

The benefit of the doubt seem's to be the go to line for the media, and I really have to question why this is?

It seem's the media forget's Peyton does have a very questionable past incident from his college days that many including myself would find more egregious than anything Brady had done.

Granted it is not football related per se but it does go to character, and character is what we should be looking at when giving the benefit of the doubt.


Replying to the article not you in case it wasn't clear.

 

[nighthob]

There might be a simple explanation for why they are treated differently: Brady was accused of deflating balls and Manning is accused of using HGH illegally. Deflating balls is not a crime, and so the media can freely go after him by making accusations, writing inflammatory articles, etc. IANAL, but they need to tread lightly with Manning so they don't get sued.

And just how is Manning going to sue? Celebrities that actually have been defamed don't get their cases heard in US courts (they used to sue in the UK, but I don't know if that loophole still exists), for someone like Manning the odds of a case ever making it past a judge are non-existent. A newspaper might hesitate to run the headline "Peyton Manning Sniffed HGH off Strippers Asses at Coke Fueled Orgies" but they're pretty much free to report on the actual documentary that aired.

 

[Myt1]

He has no idea - but the lawyers for The Boston Globe are vetting everything that gets written to make sure that no lines are crossed.

That's really not how it works and Manning isn't even dreaming about suing anyone at the Boston Globe without waking up and slapping himself in the enormous forehead.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Tedy Bruschi compares Brady and Manning on NFL Live today. You can see the clip at the top of the espn.com/boston page.

Just a day ago, on the Rich Eisen Pravda radio show, Eisen and PK both laughed off the comparison ... although PK once again said he believes Brady was "railroaded."

 

[Auger34]

I just watched the Eisen/Peter King video.
Can someone explain how exactly these two stories are COMPLETELY different as Eisen and King allege?
In both cases you have a report that is nebulous, no one is quite sure who did what and if the main party (Brady/Manning) is innocent or guilty. King says that somehow deflating a football slightly goes more to the integrity of the game than taking HGH (which makes no fucking sense) which seems to be his only justification for the stories being different.
To me, these stories are incredibly similar yet in one the possibe guilty party is hammered by everyone yet in the other the possible guilty party is being treated like royalty.
Really don't understand it

 

[LuckyBen]

I just watched the Eisen/Peter King video.
Can someone explain how exactly these two stories are COMPLETELY different as Eisen and King allege?
In both cases you have a report that is nebulous, no one is quite sure who did what and if the main party (Brady/Manning) is innocent or guilty. King says that somehow deflating a football slightly goes more to the integrity of the game than taking HGH (which makes no fucking sense) which seems to be his only justification for the stories being different.
To me, these stories are incredibly similar yet in one the possibe guilty party is hammered by everyone yet in the other the possible guilty party is being treated like royalty.
Really don't understand it

I find the integrity part especially laughable as RG used steroid use to hammer his punishment. The media is blinded by the golden child Manning. If this were 2005 and these allegations were coming forward, I would be very happy. I guess if the Broncos had beaten the Seahawks, I would be more pissed. I just find the whole sequence sad for a finished Manning.

 

[Stitch01]

Certainly would be silly for an organization to compare being aware of deflating footballs with PED usage. Im sure ESPN would mock anyone that claimed that.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Certainly would be silly for an organization to compare being aware of deflating footballs with PED usage. Im sure ESPN would mock anyone that claimed that.

King and (especially) Eisen weren't going to bring that up ... but you wish they had

 

[Captaincoop]

When Manning made his emotional appearance Sunday, my initial impression was that he left the door completely open as to whether his wife had HGH, or anything else, delivered to his home in her name. He said something odd, along the lines of "I can't be responsible for what my wife orders". Did I hear that wrong? Has anyone in the media followed up on that?

 

[Myt1]

When Manning made his emotional appearance Sunday, my initial impression was that he left the door completely open as to whether his wife had HGH, or anything else, delivered to his home in her name. He said something odd, along the lines of "I can't be responsible for what my wife orders". Did I hear that wrong? Has anyone in the media followed up on that?

Yeah, the second I heard him say that, and make that point explicitly, I saw the Debbie Chewbacca Clemens defense start to take shape.

 

[I12XU]

Yeah, the second I heard him say that, and make that point explicitly, I saw the Debbie Chewbacca Clemens defense start to take shape.

The spouse HIPPA shield was being put in place on day 1 of any Manning hGH program; I think any athlete begins PED use building a defense should allegations be made. From the day weeks ago Al Jazeera called Peyton's camp seeking comment on the story, Peyton has been bolstering his defense by hiring Ari Fliesher, by making himself available the second the story started breaking in advance of it airing, perhaps by coordinating with Guyer to debunk Sly with the fudged employment dates, likely by pressuring Sly or even having Sly's recant statement written in coordination with his counsel.

 

[djbayko]

The spouse HIPPA shield was being put in place on day 1 of any Manning hGH program; I think any athlete begins PED use building a defense should allegations be made. From the day weeks ago Al Jazeera called Peyton's camp seeking comment on the story, Peyton has been bolstering his defense by hiring Ari Fliesher, by making himself available the second the story started breaking in advance of it airing, perhaps by coordinating with Guyer to debunk Sly with the fudged employment dates, likely by pressuring Sly or even having Sly's recant statement written in coordination with his counsel.

Sly needs no pressure to recant beyond saving his own hide, and I'd probably advise Peyton to avoid communication with the "slapstick" he despises in the wake of this report.

 

[troparra]

Not sure if this was linked before in the other thread (I couldn't find it), but the Sporting News covers it pretty well:
http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl-news/4689366-peyton-manning-indianapolis-colts-denver-broncos-hgh-al-jazeera-denial-nfl-charlie-sly

Tom Jackson didn't want to "legitimize" a "fabricated" story by even discussing it on the air. "Let's put it to rest," said Jackson, although the story was only hours old.

Dungy said. "He knows that he’s a role model for young people, for young kids. I just don’t think he would do it for those reasons because he knows what it means to young people that look up to him."

 

[Bone Chips]

I just watched the Eisen/Peter King video.
Can someone explain how exactly these two stories are COMPLETELY different as Eisen and King allege?
In both cases you have a report that is nebulous, no one is quite sure who did what and if the main party (Brady/Manning) is innocent or guilty. King says that somehow deflating a football slightly goes more to the integrity of the game than taking HGH (which makes no fucking sense) which seems to be his only justification for the stories being different.
To me, these stories are incredibly similar yet in one the possibe guilty party is hammered by everyone yet in the other the possible guilty party is being treated like royalty.
Really don't understand it

I just heard the interview as well and my head almost exploded. At this point it has to be said - Peter King is just not a very bright person. He's well connected and he can string together a few sentences nicely, but his cognitive abilities are average at best, and that's being kind. I no longer expect him to be able to connect the dots, draw basic inferences, etc. I don't know if he lost it due to age, or if he never had it to begin with, but it's just not there.

 

[Captaincoop]

Yeah, the second I heard him say that, and make that point explicitly, I saw the Debbie Chewbacca Clemens defense start to take shape.

We are about to be asked to believe that a wife would be ordering and using an illegal and controversial performance-enhancing drug without the knowledge of her husband.

Let alone that the husband is a multi-millionaire, famous athlete whose reputation would be at risk by virtue of those drugs even being delivered to his home.

The fact that he's leaving the door open to that defense makes him look guilty.

 

[H78]

The quotes dhappy has pointed out all have well known verbal cues that indicate that Peyton is probably lying.

See, for example, this TED talk by Pamela Meyer or her book, Liespotting:

This is an interesting watch after seeing how Manning responded. Literally every red flag is there.

Unfortunately, the same red flags are there for Brady's infamous post-Deflategate presser.

 

[bougrj1]

This is an interesting watch after seeing how Manning responded. Literally every red flag is there.

Unfortunately, the same red flags are there for Brady's infamous post-Deflategate presser.

The difference is that in Brady's presser he didn't know the truth. Reports had said the balls were way under-inflated, so while he knew about any role he would have played, there were a lot of things he didn't know as well. With Manning, he knows if he did or did not do something. There's not much grey area.

 

[Tony C]

Have no idea if he did or did not. I tend to believe categorical denials like his, but certainly can buy that he's just going down with the ship. Bottom-line is I don't really care much.

My only skin in the game is the spin -- I kind of like seeing Peyton getting some grief, deservedly or not. And I thought Bruschi's spin on ESPN was perfect from a Pats' fan POV: basically completely equated it to the BS Brady has faced, saying similar lack of proof/evidence, and should be dealt with the same. I'd love to hear how douches like Dungy or Pollian would sputter in response to that.

 

[deanx0]

I think the obvious difference between the two is where the stories originated and the effect they would have on the league. Deflategate was a league-initiated investigation with the NFL Headquarters wanting to look tough on rule-breakers, particularly after large pockets of the league felt the Patriots got off easy for Spygate. This report on Peyton came from an outside source that again ultimately points out how little the league cares for the long-term health of its players. Any media organization looking to stay in the league's good graces is going to approach the two stories from vastly different angles.

 

[m0ckduck]

Better distinctions between the two cases have already been raised, but let's not forget: the Manning scenario requires the casual observer to imagine an athlete taking a performance-enhancing drug, which nobody really likes to think about and induces all kinds of cognitive dissonance. A ball deflation scheme, meanwhile, is like an Encyclopedia Brown concept of how sneaky people might try to cheat at football.

 

[dhappy42]

The "fan psychology" aspect of the Brady v. Manning scandals is fascinating to me.

In both cases, it seems that the majority of people are willing to completely abandon common sense to believe what they want to believe.

In Deflategate, the most obvious, common sense explanation for the under-inflation of the footballs is cold weather. Instead, Hatriots cooked up an elaborate and somewhat preposterous scheme to explain a tiny discrepancy.

In this Manning HGH thing, the most obvious, common sense explanation for Guyer mailing HGH to the Manning house is to help Manning recover from injury. Instead, Manning fans are cooking up all kinds of preposterous theories -- Ashley Manning suffers from dwarfism, HIV or short-bowl syndrome -- to wish away a rather obvious explanation.

 

[luckiestman]

The "fan psychology" aspect of the Brady v. Manning scandals is fascinating to me.

In both cases, it seems that the majority of people are willing to completely abandon common sense to believe what they want to believe.

In Deflategate, the most obvious, common sense explanation for the under-inflation of the footballs is cold weather. Instead, Hatriots cooked up an elaborate and somewhat preposterous scheme to explain a tiny discrepancy.

In this Manning HGH thing, the most obvious, common sense explanation for Guyer mailing HGH to the Manning house is to help Manning recover from injury. Instead, Manning fans are cooking up all kinds of preposterous theories -- Ashley Manning suffers from dwarfism, HIV or short-bowl syndrome -- to wish away a rather obvious explanation.

Welcome to the reality based community. It's a small club.

 

[Rancho Relaxo]

I'm not a believer in a calculated anti-Patriots media conspiracy. I think it's just a combination of journalistic laziness and pandering to mouth-breathing sports fans, mired in a sea of conflicting interests. That said, I found this Yahoo article interesting:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/how-can-manning--brady-be-careful-with-image--yet-clumsy-elsewhere--231631284.html

Maybe this link was inevitable, but I don't think Brady's ties to Guerrero and Manning's to Guyer's clinic are exactly equal stories. At least, not yet. Linking them this way seems lazy. I also don't think Brady's approach and level of care in cultivating his image is the same as Manning's. Unless, well, Brady spends countless hours concocting ways to come across as awkward and doofus-y.

 

[The Price Is Wrong]

Yeah, that only holds up if Guerrero is doing anything illegal or against NFL rules. Or if, as Volin alleged in that hilarious D&C bit where he was ripped apart by the Barstool guy, Kraft is steering business to Guerrero that Brady (as part-owner) gets a piece of, as an off-the-books way of compensating him for his below-market cap hit.

It's perfectly plausible that a new-agey, somewhat hokey physical therapist has hit on a good regimen and set of techniques to keep professional athletes from getting injured. Whether he's worth the money, or even a charlatan, is a question for the consumer of his services, not the public. It was certainly worth public notice of his criminal past, but that's all, unless it is continuing. But an anti-aging clinic prescribing drugs that have no plausible uses for the Mannings, and where there's an inevitable appearance of a impropriety and a high likelihood of illegal activity that's also very much against the integrity of the sport, has a lot of public interest attached to it.

The article has a somewhat lazy conflating of the two, but only so far as to say "how could Brady and Manning associate themselves with these low-lifes", and then explore the psychological basis for why pro athletes take every competitive edge they can find - ignoring the fact that the QBs are obviously only associating with the practitioners because they each believe their guy can help them professionally. And then the obvious-to-a-5th-grader difference pops up: Brady's guy is using techniques of dubious value but obvious legality, whereas Manning's guy prescribing HGH has obvious value but dubious legality.

 

[phenweigh]

And then the obvious-to-a-5th-grader difference pops up: Brady's guy is using techniques of dubious value but obvious legality, whereas Manning's guy prescribing HGH has obvious value but dubious legality.

Maybe it's not so obvious that using hGH would help Manning's neck injury recovery.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/on-manning-controversy--expert-says---it-wouldn-t-make-sense--to-use-hgh-in-recovery-234910370.html

 

[brandonchristensen]

Deflating balls didn't seem to have any tangible effect on throwing either.